Emotion and Arousal
William James – Your body is telling you “you are afraid”. For every situation there is a response
Canon-Bard – two-factor theory of emotion. Your physical response is the dame as when you are in love. We can miss attribution. Misattribution of arousal.
Zillman (1979) – unrelated event – physical arousal – intensifies your response in another situation. Misattribution. Arousal from another source. Interpretation of the arousal in state in which is aggression appropriate.
What is truth?
Muzafar Sherif (1936) reality:
Truth as we are able to understand it.
Auto kinetic Experiment
Individual experiment: random answers or some sort of norm. (10o judgements, 2 session)
Result: as an individual you have your own standard. And they develop a mode and when there are in a group, they come to an agreement to what is the right answer.
Group experiment: even more random answers or a group norm.
Result: as a group they already started with an agreement. They already started with a norm and kept it.
At the end when they ask
This experiment had no right or wrong answers. Counterbalanced order.
Individuals established a mode and there was an individual median.
Meaning auto kinetic: ‘selfmovement’
Ze deden het ‘stip’ experiment waarbij men naar een stip keek en vroeg of het bewoog of niet.
Informational conformity= conformeert zowel private als public.
Normative conformity= conformeert op dat moment, andere momenten heb je jouw eigen denkwijze. This is public and not private.
Norms are social products
Groups seem to have a binding power
explanations for socially turbulent times (e.g. political, disaster)
cross-cultural, care relations.
Situational = powerful
Dependency on others for social approval (normative).
‘I want to be accepted’
Dependency on others for information about reality (informational)
‘I want to know what’s right’
Conformity and obedience
Verandering in gedrag door explicite of impliciete sociala druk. Dat kan op 2 manieren=
Informational influence= omdat ze juist willen antwoorden. (public + private) 2 aspecten hiervan zijn=
Social referencing: naar andere kijken om te weten hoe te gedragen.
Je gelooft dat ze de waarheid spreken,
Normative influence: conformeren om aardig gevonden te worden. (public)
Compliance (public conformity): je verandert alleen gedrag, maar mening blijft hetzelfde.
Exp. Ash.: groep van 6 personen moest je kiezen welke lijn het langst was. 37% conformity.
Conversion (private conformity): je verandert gedrag + mening.
Exp. Sherif. Autokinetic = groep van 3 personen meningen kwamen dichter bij elkaar.
KELLMAN Private Public Compliance x Normative
Identification Not forever
Private Public Compliance x Conversion Bekeerling (verandert helemaal mee)
Indepence x x Anti-conformity x Mee eens, maar conformeert niet mee.
Congrence At al langer geen vlees, dus wordt maar vegan. (geen groot verschil.
Linear vs. non-linear
In general: non-linear effect is most robust
Subjective (music taste)/fitting in linear effect
Objective (Asch Line) > non-linear (3-5 person majority)
(Hogg, Vaughan p. 256)
Following a direct order. Asking to do something, you do it.
Factors that make people obey.
Immediacy – Social Impact Theory – strength, immediacy and number.
Process of obedience:
Activation of norms obedience.
Exclusion other norms that guide individual behavior
Justification of the action gaat tegen je eigen norm
Milgram experiment (1963)
Experiment was to punish the learners by the teacher if his answers were wrong. Learner was given the right to say wrong answers, but the teacher didn’t know. ‘how far will people go if the authority says you can punish until when you can’.
Result: People will go far if they are under control of people with power.
“The fundamental concept in social science is Power, in the same sense in which energy is the fundamental concept in physics.” (Bertrand Russel 1938)
Social Power: The capacity to influence others, even when these others try to resist influence (forsyth, p. 242)
Raven’s (1965) Six Power Bases
Coercive Power- Power to punish or threaten
Reward Power – Power to reward (loonsverhoging)
Legitimate power – Authorized power by law (judge, president)
Referent power- Charisma: Follow me (religious people, zafzafi, to die for their leader)
Informational power – I know something you don’t know (influencers)
Expert power – Trust me, I’m a professional. (lab coat, professor, doctor)
Can a person have both reward as coersive power?
Minority Influence: minderheid wilt change, conformeert niet met meerderheid. Denk zwarte piet discussie.
Serge Moscovici – conversion effect = how can you change someone’s norm?
Systematic processing of arguments
Private conformity (or conversion)
Facts vs. opinions
Motives (progressive, ‘non-conformist’)
Social identity theory:
Identify w/ group will influence beliefs & self-esteem.
5 stappen voor geven van hulp (Latane & Darley)
Problemen opmerken. noticing
Wat fout kan gaan: distraction
Stimulus overload: gewend zijn om arme mensen op straat te zien, dus je filtert ze sneller weg.
Wat fout kan gaan: dubbelzinnigheid (ambigious/ambugiteit)
Plurastic ignorance: andere vooruitzichten in hun hoofd, maar iedereen handelt hetzelfde. Iedereen heeft misperceptie van de ander, want ze denken dat hunzelf een andere kijk heeft op de situatie.
Diffusion of responsibility: meerdere mensen aanwezig, waardoor verantwoordelijkheid verdeeld wordt. (not possible als individu -denkt- alleen is)
Lack of competence
Bepalen hoe je gaat helpen.
Kan direct als: ik ben een arts
Als indirect: ik bel een arts reportorial
Als cost meer is dan reward, dan helpen ze niet.
Audience inhibition angst om voorschut te staan.
? Als 1 van de bovengenoemde stappen mist, dan onstaat er een bystanders effect.
Hoe groter de groep, hoe kleiner de kans op hulp.
Bystanders calculus model (Piliavin 81)
Calculator van bystanders’ effect.
Arousal (zoals empathie)
Label as arousal (connecting arousal to emotion)
Evaluation of cost & reward.
Een individu breekt uit de rol van de bystanders effect en helpt de persoon in nood.
Characteristics that keep a group together
Arousal + anonymity + reduces responsibility = deindividuation
Voorbeeld: Guards of Stanford Prison Exp.
Verliezen van eigen identiteit in groep en verschuiven vam eigen grenzen.
High level of arousalreduces self-awareness
Focus on exernal events
Close group unity
Drive theory (Zajonc)
Presence others arousal increases facilitates dominant respons
Correct or increased performance or incorrect or decreased performance
Social Facilization (Zajonc)
Aanwezigheid van andere versterkt dominante respons.
Forsyth: to facilitate to enhance. (correct or increased respons of drive theory)
Social inhibitionIncorrect respons or decreased performance of drive theory.
Group task can be classified according to whether a division of labour is possible:
whether there is a predetermined standard to be met; and how an individual input can contribute.
Is the task divisible or unitary?
A divisible task is one that benefits from a division of labour, where different people perform different subtasks.
A unitary task cannot sensibly be broken into subtasks. Building a house is a divisible task and pulling a rope a unitary task.
Is it a maximising or an optimising task?
A maximising task is an open-ended task that stresses quantity: the objective is to do as much as possible.
An optimising task is one that has a predetermined standard: the objective is to meet the standard, neither to exceed nor fall short of it. Pulling on a rope would be a maximising task but maintaining a specified fixed force on the rope would be an optimising task.
How are individual inputs related to the group’s product?
An additive task is one where the group’s product is the sum of all the individual inputs (e.g. a group of people planting trees).
A compensatory task is one where the group’s product is the average of the individuals’ inputs (e.g. a group of people estimating the number of bars in Amsterdam).
A disjunctive task is one where the group selects as its adopted product one individual’s input (e.g. a group of people proposing different things to do over the weekend will adopt one person’s suggestion).
A conjunctive task is one where the group’s product is determined by the rate or level of performance of the slowest or least able member (e.g. a group working on an assembly line).
A discretionary task is one where the relationship between individual inputs and the group’s product is not directly dictated by task features or social conventions; instead the group is free to decide on its preferred course of action (e.g. a group that decide to shovel snow together).
Je zit in conflict. Ga je meer aandacht geven aan mensen of aan taak?
Fundamental attribution error
Cognitive huerstic (Kassin)
Difference between HSM & ELM
Central and peripheral route to persuasion
Elaboration likelihood model (Petty & Cacioppo)
Central: Think hard about what you see, feel, hear.
Peripheral: influenced by others.
Heuristic-systematic model (Chaiken)
Difference FCE & BFF
False consensus effect: behavior, attitude is the norm. what we feel, we think others think that too.
Belief in a favorable future: FCE predicts future.
Wat is self-serving bias?
Attributional distortions that protect or enhance self-esteem or the self-concept.
The exam went bad the exam was bad made (not your fault)
Protecting or enhancing self-esteem Ego-serving
Kelleys covariation theory
How to attribute someone’s behavior.
Low consensus: nobody likes movie, but he does.
High distinctiveness: he does not like most movies, but this one he does.
High consistency: student went twice and also liked the movie the first time.
(Stanford) Prison experiment
Zimbardo (1971) heeft een onderzoek gestart naar de psychologische consequenties van het leven in een gevangenis.
Gesponsord door: US Navy interested: reden van conflicten tussen militaire bewakers en gevangenen.
Het snappen van de onderliggende woede van mensen. Is het situation/environment of personality traits/disposition.
Deelnemers= 24 gezonde, mannelijke studenten.
Geen criminele achtergrond
Geen mentale beperkingen
Geen medische problemen
Locatie gemaakte gevangenis= kelder van de Stanford University
Rollen zijn door een flip of coin verdeeld. (Heel random)
9 gevangenen (24/7) en 9 bewakers(8u./7). Bewakers hadden een team van 3 om de 8 uur shift. De rest van de bewakers en gevangenen staan on stand-by voor als ze hen nodig hebben.
Zimbardo rol = supervisie (superintended)
David Jaffe rol (assistent van Zimbardo voor dit onderzoek) = directeur van prison
Geen fysiek geweld
Great impact of social roles/context.
Clear authority/subordinates’ relationship
Prison environment manipulates to promote anonymity depersonalization and dehumanization. aggressive behavior guards submissive behavior prisoners
BBC Prison Study
Social Identity theory:
Weak identification as a group x
Undermining other guards (insecurity)
No clear leader
Weak or no punishment
Lost their authority
Stringer identification as a group than the guards
Noticed the weakness in the guards
Broke down authority
Everything went well at first
No consequences for when rules were broken
Rebellious participants continued to misbehave
Some wanted strong social order (prisoner – guard system)
This led to extreme behavior which led to the experiment to be discontinued
Not the same as SPE
Behavior was not reliable on the social role (guard or prisoner)
The guards did not show extreme anti-social behavior
People do not automatically assume the roles that are given to them
Contextual factors play a large role.
Zimbargo reaction to BBC Prison Theory
Was against it.
wasn’t first prison experiment, 3 months before by Jeffrey and he was a guard of the spe. Based on the dorms experiment. Stanford university basement
guards knew what to achieve in experiment
guards were informed about participants
were not allowed to leave. Only reason: gek worden (psychische problemen)
Zimbargo said didn’t feel like a prison. The real effect of prison, felt more like school play
The documentary were just a few clips and were incomplete and biased
Conclusion were written before experiment was completed
Main goal: report
Why do people behave like this?
Part I – First Impressions
Power (dominance) Babyface less slightly to be promoted to leadership
Oosterhof & Todorov (2008)
Three applicants expr. = tattoo in neck, stigma on face and a normal applicant. Normal applicant was mostly chosen for interview.
Voice (high or low, fast or slowly)
Dividing people into categories on the basis of common attributes (e.g. gender, ethnicity) – automatically.
Basically, you put people in boxes; hijabis with hijbabis, black with black, white people with white.
Impression formation theories (Fiske, Lin, & Neuberg, 1999)
Limited personalized information Social categorization
More personalized information individualization
Outgroup homogeneity effect (lack of familiarity)
All outgroup members are alike
All ingroup members are diverse
Goal= social identity (Tajfel & Turner, 1986)
Fundamental attribution error (Pettigrew, 1979)
Other’s negative behavior internal, dispositional factors (personality)
Other’s positive behavior external, situational factors (chance)
Explaining action of lawyer
Limits on the correspondence bias
Correspondence bias less prevalent on eastern, interdependent cultures
Perhaps those cultures consider wider range of causes for a behavior, not just personal characteristics.
Expr. Black treatment with the interviewer.
Word, Zanna & Cooper (1972)
Processing information (can we change first impression) by Daniel Kahneman
Persuasion and attitudes
Elaboration likelihood/ heuristic systematic
Superficial (type 1/central)
Unwilling or unable to devote much time or effect to thinking
First impression unlikely to change (conservatism)
Systematic (type 2/central)
Thinking more deeply taking a wider range of information into account
Less biases, you are going more through information
Requires two factors
Part II – The Scientific Method (by Peter Verkoeijen)
Ways of knowing
Passer (2017) Research Methods: concepts and connections
Tenacity= knowing by force of habit
Authority= knowledge gained from others
Reason= relying on logic and rationality
Empiricism= knowledge based on experience
Science: knowledge based on systematic empiricism (todays lecture)
Empirical cycle: Rogers et.al, (2017)
2 different books predict 2 different political outcomes.
False consensus effect (FCE): because you like something people should like it too.
“Everyone should love Justin Bieber because you do? False! That’s false consensus effect.”
FCE relates to mative realism:
I perceive the world objectively
Rational others must see the world as I do
Those who disagree with me are uninformed, irrational or biased.
FCE increases for future predictions: Belief in Favorable Future (BFF)
Design study and collect data (study 2 in paper)
“When you have put a lot of ideas together to make an elaborate theory, you want to make sure, when explaining what it first, that those things it fits are not just the things that gave you the idea for the theory·”
Richards Feynman on Cargo Cult Science.
Replication is the cornerstone of empirical science
Concerns about replication in medicine, economics, genetics and psychology.
Replication of famous ‘professor priming’ study:
What happens? Psychology student randomly divided into groups. One group had to think of 1 professor. They were thinking of intelligent. Other group had to think about hooligans. They didn’t think about rationality. Afterwards, both groups had to answers trivia questions. People who think about professor scored better than group ‘hooligans’.
Openness to new ideas
Cite this essay
Social Influence – Compliance and Obedience. (2019, Dec 13). Retrieved from https://studymoose.com/social-influence-compliance-and-obedience-essay